Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike D.
I would think that by definition, anything that "lowers the standard" is below the average. That being said, I agree with you that doesn't mean that a player below the average shouldn't get elected, just that their election would technically "lower the standard".
Of course, I'm a big advocate for looking at median, not average, when looking at HOF rankings, especially by WAR. Look at WAR by CFers...the "average WAR" of the 19 Hall of Fame CF is 71.6. BUT, there are only seven CF above that, 6 of who are in the HOF (Trout is the other). The median is probably closer to 60, so players above that would be those we should at least consider. There are 16 CF with over 60 WAR, 10 of who are in the HOF.
The average is high because of crazy scores for Mays, Cobb, Speaker and Mantle. Also, I use BBR WAR. If you prefer Fangraphs, more power to you.
|
I think we need a tighter definition for lowering the standard, otherwise it’s simply inevitable. After the first year, the standard will lower, as the Hall expands. I think the more reasonable thing is to have it expand to the best players not in, instead of what looks from afar like committees throwing darts randomly and looks up close like them electing their friends.
A player 5% below the median is a deserving hall of gamer and not a poor choice. It may lower the statistical median slightly, but it doesn’t lower the standard
for election, as those players almost always make it and always have.